Talk:Maltese nobility

Adjusted links

Is there an independent reference to indicate there was a British Colonial Royal Commission? I think this article needs some authoritative referencing.

Referring to something as "the" Royal Commission suggests it was a specific organisation. I'd suggest "a Royal Commission" -- isn't a royal commission a commission of inquiry into a particular issue anyway? So, there can be, for example, the Royal Commission into Titles for Maltese Nobles and so on, but no single body called the Royal Commission.

Are there any references to this particular royal commission online? Ampersand77 (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On good advice from the Vfd page, I'm moving some of your pages, those that preëmpt the names of Saints. The links here therefore had to be adjusted. Best, Bill 23:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Bill. No problems. User:Tancarville 1.46pm 27 Oct 2004.

Acknowledgement

(Text originally based on that of a website by Charles Said Vassallo, by permission.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caerwine (talk • contribs) 13:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed mergers

I'm proposing that the following articles should be merged into this one:

Count of Santi

Count of Meimun

Marquis of Taflia

Barons of Grua

Barony of Gomerino

there are plenty of others but I haven't the time or energy to work through them at the moment - maybe some other kind soul will do it.

Reasons:

1. These articles are virtually identical to each other, differing only in their title and a few details such as dates.

2. Most of each article is unreadable - large chunks of Latin copied verbatim from the original sources

3. Most of the references are identical

andy (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Refer to this please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Maltese_nobility I am totally against your so-called merger. User Talk: Tancarville 21:36, 25 May 2008.
• 1. It was Wikipedia who asked Tancarvile to improve the articles.

Tancarville has started to do this. The emphasis is to highlight the historical relevance and issues concerning each title.

2. All recent updates contain a precise reference to the grants. Checking each and every reference for this arcane subject, in no less than five languages, is no easy task. Postitive criticism from a Wikipedia administrator is appreciated but vindictive undermining is not. There is always room for improvement.

3. Each title has its own history. In regard to those which were created by the Grand Masters who ruled Malta, the "remainders" vary in their meaning and effect. For this reason it was thought best to quote verbatim the respective remainders, and this in Latin i.e. the original text.

4. The fact that titles are no longer recognized at law in Malta, does NOT mean that they have been abolished.

5. In regard to the foreign titles of nobility which were recognized by the Grand Masters, these are by far even more complex, not only because of the 1739 ad 1795 legislation, but also because the most of the original fons honorum have long gone (with the exception of the King of Spain).

6. It is a useless exercise to merge all titles into one group. At best, one can identify different classifications. (For example, the 1878 Royal Commission classified Rohan's creations into 3 groups). - But in fairness's sake, this is an exercise which could only be done once all the relative information is up and runnning.

7. If anybody has issues with the fact that by 1800 Malta had an advanced form of Nobility, that is his/her problem. - Facts are facts.

8. Tancarville has also made available the FULL texts in *.pdf format of the 1878 Royal Commission and official correspondence.

9. Whilst the 1878 Commission's findings are regarded as authoritative, some aspects required revisiting not only because of some apparent errors and contradictions found in the Report itself, but also because of subsequent developments.

10. Moreover, at the end of each title's description, there is a list of direct and indirect proofs of each title's legitimacy and authoritative documentation, emphasising the Primary source and moving downards in terms of (relative) importance.

11. It is definitely not true that the only difference between one title and the other is "a change in the date an heading". Some may be very similar, but others are radically different.

12. Old general legislation (i.e. pre-1800) is quoted in full for the convenience of the reader. If anybody ventures a argument or claim in respect of any one of the titles, he/she might as well be reminded of the general pitfalls. This "problem", which is common to all updated entries, can be solved by the simple expedient of setting up a separate page.

13. If Wikipedia's administrators want to get some sort of warped pleasure out of creating unnecessary polemics, simply because they are jealous of the Maltese nation's historic identity, let them please delete the whole lot. User talk:Tancarville 1:08;, 26 May 2008 (EST)

Well, while Tancarville is cutting-and-pasting from one of the pertinent AfDs, so shall I:

• Comment: Alright ... here we go. First off, almost all the non-self-published sources Tancarville cites are unavailable for review to the vast majority of Wikipedia editors, which debars them from qualifying as reliable sources. For the non-English language texts, WP:V holds the following: "Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher ... Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."

Secondly, while Tancarville holds himself out as a renowned geneaologist on his own and a number of websites, no reliable sources say so. A G-search for "Charles Said-Vassallo" turns up only 83 unique hits, all of them various webpages. There are zero hits on Google Scholar for him, something of an ominous sign. WP:V further holds:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (emphasis in the original)

So far, and in violation of WP:V, we are taking Tancarville's unsupported word for the existence of the sources he claims and for the accuracy of the information he gives on his website ... and startlingly, we have been doing so for years now. It's also an ominous sign how readily he accuses anyone questioning his sources or seeking to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines to his articles of being "vindictive" or having some animus towards Malta, and I'd appreciate some answers that don't boil down to "How dare you?"

... there. As pertinent to this discussion, I'm familiar with Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Maltese_nobility. It was a terrible, misguided decision, and I'm heartened by the knowledge it wouldn't happen now, as witness the almost unanimous global consensus to delete on the AfDs. We haven't even touched the notability issue.  RGTraynor  11:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've cleaned up the language, added some wikilinks, deleted many others to AfDed/prodded articles. I also struck out references to the Commission for Privileges, seeing as it's a private club without any official connection seeking to "rule" on titles that were abolished by the Maltese government decades ago.

I also struck out the section on those titles not allowed by the 19th century British Royal Commission. One would imagine that the only reason they weren't allowed was that they were spurious, and as such, have no place here.  RGTraynor  13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, I'm afraid. They were excluded for purely political reasons. Nobody has an agenda quite like the British. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And you have a reliable source for that, I assume?  RGTraynor  10:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I found these at http://www.archive.org/stream/nobilitiesofeuro01ruviuoft/nobilitiesofeuro01ruviuoft_djvu.txt] "He is the Premier Marquess of Malta, and is also a Patrician of Venice, though the latter title is not recognised by the British Government."

"He is also 9th Baron of St. Paul (Barone di San Paolino) in Sicily (16 July 1638), but that, being a Foreign Title never recorded in Malta, is not recognised by the British Government."

"The 1st Marquess was also, by letters patent dated at Chambery 13 July 1717, cr. by Victor Amadeus, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy, a Marquess (Marchese di Testa- ferrata) [Sicily], but this title was never recognised or recorded in Malta, and, though vested in the present Marquess, is not recognised by the British Government, though his succession to the title was established by the Court of Appeal 8 June 1886."

"TESTAFERRATA. Noble Mariano Testaferrata was cr. a PATRICIAN OP MESSINA for himself and his descendants by the Senate of that city 20 Dec. 1553 (diploma registered at Messina 17 Apr. 1554, and recorded in the Civil Acts of the Inquisitorial Office at Malta 27 Aug. 1689); and his descendant Paul Testaferrata sue. his uncle Monsignor Don Leonardo Abela, Bishop of Sidonia, as a PATRICIAN OF ROME, that dignity having been conferred on the said Bishop and his brothers Placido and Alessandro Abela, and his three nephews ex sorore, Pietro di Ferro, Ascanio Sudo, and Paolo Testaferrata, and their descendants for ever, by the Senate of Rome 11 June 1590 (registered in the Civil Acts of the Inquisition of Malta 26 Aug. 1689) ; and these honours are now held by his descendants"

"Giacomo Testaferrata de Robertis, another descendant of the above-named Mariano, was cr. a HEREDITARY KNIGHT OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE by the Emperor Ferdinand III. 6 Nov. 1637, and a PATRICIAN OF ROME 6 July 1674 ; and these honours are now enjoyed by his descendants"

NAVARRA. Joseph Stagno (Navarra), Count della BAHRIA [Malta 1743], claims to be a HEREDITARY PATRICIAN OF MESSINA (PATRIZIO MESSINESE) and COUNT OF CASANDOLA (CONTE DI CASANDOLA) [Sicily], which latter title was granted to his ancestor 6 Jan. 1685 by Charles II., Kong of Spain and Sicily, with rem. to his heirs. 3 See p. 13.

I don't like conspiracy theories but this does sound like a real British agenda. Red taxi (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• It certainly sounds like that - if that source is accurate - the British didn't recognize the title, and the reason why is even mentioned; come to that, an article on Maltese nobility shouldn't be about non-Maltese titles. A "real British agenda" would also, I fancy, come with some indication as to what that agenda is. It is a hallmark of conspiracy theorists to imagine that there's always some ulterior, sinister motive for every decision, and failing reliable sources attesting to the same, there's no reason to presume that titles were turned down by the Royal Commission for any cause beyond failure to meet their standards of proof.  RGTraynor  11:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from but it doesn't make sense. It talks about Maltese titles and foreign titles incorporated in the Maltese Peerage and then mentions titles not recognised by Britain.

I found this in the same book "The list which follows is compiled from the Reports of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Claims of the Maltese Nobility, and laid before both Houses of Parliament 1878, 1883, and 1888. The Commissioners add, however, that they do not mean to infer that no other titles were granted by the Grand Masters besides the twenty-one they enumerate, and state, " on the contrary, we do not hesitate to affirm that several other titles were at different times created, some of which have been determined by the death without issue of their holders, whilst others were granted to the applicants to hold to themselves alone. Other titles of which we have no notice may perhaps also exist, but we are only called upon by our instructions to consider such claims as have been referred."

And this "All these recognitions by the Government are made subject to any subsequent decision of a competent Court of Law."

3 reports and provisional recognitions? More than 21 titles? Sounds terribly confusing. British colonial policy at its best. Someone please explain. Red taxi (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, if we were to speculate, one could infer that the whole reason a Royal Commission was appointed in the first place to sort out Maltese titles was because a whole whopping lot of people demanded recognition of this title and that purportedly granted to some ancestor or another by the crowned head of some ephemeral state or another. It'd also be interesting to know why the British bothered at all, instead of dismissing the whole business as gimcrackery from a tiny island with a contemporaneous population similar to Southwark, which would have been consistent behavior from them. Of course, speculation is beyond our scope, and we can only report on the sourced facts.  RGTraynor  20:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, that sounds really disrespectful and I think you should strike your last comment. Malta is old as in REALLY old. We could speculate that the americans were selling scalps in 1600 whilst the Maltese were wearing liveries of sorts but that won't get us very far will it? Red taxi (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the comment is not only disrespectful, but intensely ignorant. I would question the editors ability to work in a spirit of cooperation and intelligence on this project with these sorts of attitudes. What a pitiful display - I hope it can be explained (though in no way excused) by youthful immaturity, or a lack of education. In either case, please refrain from such racist comments in future, and do some reading. History is a wonderful subject. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, he suggested you to find some sources? Might have been a littly pointy, but find some, or get over it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So, you're supporting this kind of attitude? Thanks for contributing. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw and still see nothing racist in the comments above. Get a reliable source for you additions, or don't edit the article. Thems the rules, nothing racist about it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This explains a lot - and I haven't made any factual additions, and don't intend to. I object to a facile and glib characterisation from somebody who doesn't seem to understand the issues. I appreciate that Wikipedia festers with dilettantism, but that doesn't make it any better. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a collaborative project, with rules, including WP:AGF, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and quit a few others. You're the one accusing another user of racism and failing to provide reliable sources for the material you wish to introduce into the article. Consensus or not, reliable sources is one of the core policys of the project. Facile and glib it is not. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Facile and glib is in reference to the editors comments regarding Malta and the Maltese nobility, specifically It'd also be interesting to know why the British bothered at all, instead of dismissing the whole business as gimcrackery from a tiny island with a contemporaneous population similar to Southwark. Again, I'm not introducing anything into the article - I'm disputing the deletion of information without any real valid reasoning. Please have some idea about the background to the article/situation before hazarding an opinion. Surely that's common practice (it's bare civility if nothing more). Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have quite a bit of background on it, having had a hand in on these articles for a couple of years now ... a year and a half before you started an involvement with Wikipedia, come to that. What's yours? That being said, I didn't accuse anyone of "racism" for claiming that the British were out to get Malta for "purely political reasons." "Nobody has an agenda quite like the British." Those were your words, and I doubt a British citizen would consider you to be following common practice and civility policies in saying so ... he might, however, consider your remarks facile and glib, if not outright racist. As far as that goes ... the population of Malta in the 19th century was, in fact, smaller than many contemporaneous districts of London, and the entire country would fit comfortably within the municipal bounds of Plymouth, Massachusetts, while we're fielding comments about how primitive Americans are.  RGTraynor  03:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said a word about the primitive nature (or otherwise) of Americans during any period. I do however realise that you are unable to see your own guilt, and are stuck in a mire of pride. This is a grievance, and must be difficult for you. Hopefully you'll rectify the situation before it causes you greater damage in the "real world" - and since this article is such a shoddy work to begin with, I think most interested readers will be convinced of the need for a real look at books on the subject, and not be content with this page (if you've spent over a year on it and this is all you've achieved, I'll assume you've been very busy elsewhere). My comments were provocative, perhaps, in relation to a specific colonial mentality - yours were of the lowest caliber, and the fact you fail to acknowledge this (at least publicly) is a great shame. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(Also... you seem to equate 'size' with civilisation. I'm sure you know what Freud might have thought on that front. Quality over quantity, and be happy with what you've got!) Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I agree with you that this article is a shoddy piece of work, but then again I neither created it nor have added to it, and would be perfectly happy for the deletion process to overtake it. Anything else I have to say to you is not pertinent to this article and best left to your talk page.  RGTraynor  08:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from leaving comments on my talkpage - I will not be insulted by you. If you are unable to understand my points, I suggest re-reading the comments above. Thank you. Also - you're happy for it to be deleted, yet consensus has approved its inclusion; what does this say about your attitude towards cooperative measures? And towards this article you've assumed control over, if your ultimate aim is its deletion? I hope you don't spread this attitude to other articles. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• As far as consensus about this edit goes, that comes from me, Bali and Red Taxi in this diff: [1]; no one dissented before you started edit warring on it. Your ongoing and repeated incivilities I shan't address; if it comes to it, that'd be better coming from an administrator than from me. I'll be filing a 3RR report forthwith.  RGTraynor  10:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• And done. I won't be reverting further on the article, pending administrative action.  RGTraynor  10:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're inability to apologise for your statements says more about you than anything else you've posted here. What a deplorable shame. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your tenth block, for edit warring and a pattern of incivility, says all that's necessary about you. That being said, time to move on.  RGTraynor  12:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that that's done with ...

... let's turn some thought to the future of this article. It's never had proper sourcing, it's been a magnet for COI, sockpuppetry and controversy far out of proportion to the subject matter, it's largely orphaned beyond redirects, it hasn't been genuinely improved in six years, Malta's by far the smallest country in Europe to have such an article, titles were abolished in the Republic nearly forty years ago, and I'm minded to prod it. I'm not even sure that anything should be folded into the main article, beyond a mention in the History of Malta article involving the transition from a monarchy to a republic about the abolition of noble titles. I'm not opposed to improving the article, but we've been hearing songs and dances about improving the numerous articles concerning Maltese aristocracy for several years now, and any such improvements must be based on reliable sources available to Wikipedia editors, they must conform with WP:UNDUE, and they must take place immediately. Thoughts, folks?  RGTraynor  13:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• And to address Notpietru's remarks on his talk page, where he places repeated emphasis on the 2005 Keep vote at AfD ... first off, that was nearly five years ago, and we are not remotely bound by that decision. Secondly, many of the grounds to Keep were such as "Seems interesting," "this is an important list," "once again," "it does no harm," and suchlike. While such rationales were commonly expressed at AfD five years ago, they are properly discounted now, and emphasis is placed at AfD on whether an article meets the appropriate policies and guidelines. Thirdly, the article was created and sourced solely by Charles Said-Vassallo, who under a myriad of sockpuppets (Tancarville, Mobile historian, Conte Said-Vassallo, Vassallo5448 and Nemesis029) created numerous articles to buttress his and his family's claim to nobility; his antics eventually led to the deletion of over fifty articles, spamblocking of his website and indef blocks on all his socks. Great reliance was placed at the time on Said-Vassallo's self-proclaimed credentials as a geneaologist, as well as his assertions that he would improve the articles in question. The first was found fraudulent and the second never happened. We can quite properly reopen the question.  RGTraynor  13:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd support an AFD. Been here long enough and i'm convinced can't be established as a topic on its own. If this or that notable person from malta has a title and is deserving of an article, it will be covered there.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking a simple redirect to either the main Malta article or to History of Malta. I'm unsure an AfD would succeed, and am not completely sold that it'd be appropriate.  RGTraynor  08:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Given the lack of input from anyone other than SPA anon IPs against the same - an unfortunate hallmark of this business throughout - I'll start the redirect now.  RGTraynor  20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dubious source

The Gauci source is deeply suspect. Gauci was the original creator of dozens of dubious articles on purported noble Maltese titles on Wikipedia, among others claiming some for himself, his parents and his family. After a fairly epic business spanning a couple years (and the use of several sockpuppets on his part), he was community banned from Wikipedia, his websites spam-blacklisted, and almost all of his article creations stricken. He has a long history of claiming to be a genealogy/heraldic expert, but as was said in a RfC fifteen years ago, we've only his word for it, and his reaction to being asked for reliable, independent sources for anything was always either "How dare you question me?" or accusations of animus towards the nation of Malta.

More recently, he's unilaterally claimed to be the "Chief Herald of Malta" [2] [3], and has been repudiated by the Committee of Privileges of The Maltese Nobility, the quasi-official body governing such things. When all is said and done, he's just not a trustworthy source. Ravenswing 18:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)